Surge vs Fight

60 posts

Flag Post

I decided to do some math about the new system.

x: Winrate Fight
y: Winrate Surge
TD: Total Dmg
WD: Win Dmg
LD: Lose Dmg

Fight:
TDF = x * WDF – (1-x) * LD
Surge:
TDS = y * (WDS+20) – (1-y) * LD

To simplify
You always surrender so LD = 10
You win the same basicpoints in Surge and Fight so WDF=WDS=z (I thought my deck does slightly more dmg when I win in Surge)

To find the optimal y when Surge equals Fight:
TDF=TDS
xz+10x-10=yz+20y-10+10y
xz+10x=yz+30y
xz+10x=(z+30)y
(xz+10x)/(z+30)=y

I just solved the equation in excel for z from 15 to 25 and x from 75%-100%

As you can see if you win more then 2/3 of your games in surge it is always better then fight.
With a more likely 22 avgdmg and only 95% winchance you need more then 58% winchance on surge to do better.

 
Flag Post

It’s crap… everyone plays figth (if they are clever)

 
Flag Post

Incorrect. People who are clever have decks that can consistently win on surge.

 
Flag Post

Cool

 
Flag Post

For all the lazy autouser out there i also varieted LD

xz+xLD= yz+20y+yLD
xz+xLD=y(z+20+LD)
y=(xz+xLD)/(z+LD+20)

So as you can see .. if you manage a autodeck that scores more then 2/3 wins on surge you should prefer surge over fight.

Originally posted by thinman:

Incorrect. People who are clever have decks that can consistently win on surge.

Indeed for close wars and if you want to get most out of your score you should use surge and therefor have a working surge deck. If you are lazy and only want the gold/lp/xp then use fight for higher win%.

 
Flag Post

I am impressed by your maths

 
Flag Post

Before anything, I’ll admit I’m lazy.

But I’d be more interested in the % point gain of using Surge over Fight, given a certain win% ratio.

From what I’d guess, it would be quite minimal, and not at all relavent except in close wars. Which usually does not happen at lower level factions. Its more of a point gap of around 300~400.

 
Flag Post

Fight:
TDF = x * WDF – (1-x) * LD
Surge:
TDS = y * (WDS+20) – (1-y) * LD

Ok just to get you right you want to know TDS/TDF with a variation of x and y? LD again 10 cause in close wars you most likly always surrender.

 
Flag Post

Simply put, yes.

It might be more interesting if you could vary the bonus points for Surge, but I’ll leave it to you to do the math.

I am lazy, after all.

 
Flag Post

I stick to fight because I’m still “hoarding” up the loyalty :(

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tiamatslayer:

I stick to fight because I’m still “hoarding” up the loyalty :(

ditto, but more because I need to get my LP back up =(

 
Flag Post

tds/tdf=(y*z+30y-10)/(xz-10+10x)


I think we most likely operate in the blue part. I myself managed more then 80% win on surge with certain conditions. So this indicates an increase of 10-60% of points when you use surge.

For your second question I used a constant 95% winchance on fight and constant 22avg win.
This leads to an TDF=20,4. This may in reality variate about 10%.

There you can see with the current system you need more then 60% winrate for surge.
With 30bonuspoints you would only need every 2nd game to win.
With 70bonuspoints even 50%winchance would give you double points.

For me this last table shows that the 20 bonuspoints are quite well choosen to neither overpower surge nor make it totally usesless.

 
Flag Post

complicated math is complicated, playing a war rigt now normal fight gives you a max of 25 points per game and om auto surge i am putting ou t a constant 40 points per game. fight usualy gives about 20 points which mean that 2 games of fight = 1 game of surge if jou win half te surge battles you play on par with a 100% winrate in fight. if jou get more that 50 % win in surge it wins hands down from fight.

 
Flag Post

^you do realize that when you lose or surrender you give up points, don’t you?

 
Flag Post

O_O

Woah.

Hm. First table shows that 90%F:60%S always results in a slight edge. And to consistantly get a 20% point bonus you’d need 65%winrate. (around there)

I’m more interested in what the second table shows though. With a +30 bonus point, even with 50%winrate, it would be better than fight, and 60%winrate would give a 30% boost. (compared to the 20% at 65%winrate)

Well, I guess the rest is up to personal preference.

Personally though, I would like to see Surge giving +40~70points because I’d appreciate a game where skill pays off more than activity. So a player with a good Surge win% using 1bar of stamina would match a player who uses 3bars of stamina. Or something to that effect.

 
Flag Post

I can’t be bothered to think out the following thoroughly. Please correct me if I’m wrong or if it has been mentioned before.

Just make surge double whatever points you win in a battle.


Therefore instead of having a win pt range of 36-45, make it 32-50. There seems to be no legitimate reason why the bonus must be capped at a fixed 20pts.

So far on surge most of my wins have been yielding me 45 pts. Thus I am making 25 +20. If this is in fact the case I should be rewarded for it and an additional 5 pts wouldn’t be all that bad.

 
Flag Post

mimimi…
as stated Here

Even 20 Bonus-Points are too much. Otherwise a 15:5 win ratio on a DEFENSE DECK have to pay out with more than f***ing 9 points as net win…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Katerchen:

mimimi…
as stated Here

Even 20 Bonus-Points are too much. Otherwise a 15:5 win ratio on a DEFENSE DECK have to pay out with more than f***ing 9 points as net win…

You are complaining about the wrong thing. The 20 bonus points are to balance out the difference between surge and fight. NOT the difference between attacking and defending.

What you really should be complaining about is the age old problem that surrendering should give the defense more than 10 points. A separate issue altogether.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Katerchen:

I just had a look at one of the wars that took place after the new faction-war-system was introduced (unfortunatly at a time I was sleeping). I went 15:5 with my Def-Deck able to obtain 150 points. I assumed that most attackers did use surge (what they did!). So I was able to obtain 150 points out of 20 fights, where the 5 losses lead to at 141 (almost 30 per loss) points as well. Therefore even 10 wins more than the attacker had (on my deck) was a net win of NINE points. Even if your def-deck is working out 66% of all cases you are still shot in the foot, if you are not online. Therefore I have to agree with xRepclicax that the Bonus has to be reviewed… The suggestion to grant 10 Bonus-Points to the defender in case of a Surge-Surrender seems reasonable to me. It would have been 300:141 on def-side. That seems more likely a distribution of 66% win-ratio. It will also lead to a point that spamming Surge is not a viable option anymore if you lack a deck that works out. On the other end, I just “spammed” Surge myself on an actual war on offense and 7:3 leads to 291:30. That is a total + of 261 by offense (within 10 battles) or a total net win of 26.1 per fight – 41.6 per win. At this very point activity beats skill by far.

You could quote yourself….

Maybe extra point loss on Surge would be good if Surge actually provided more bonus points, but with the current +20, definately not.

Yes, at this point, activity would still beat skill by far. But that’s what people want. To be online once per hour or two just to win. Sadly.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by LightburneR:
Originally posted by Katerchen:

I just had a look at one of the wars that took place after the new faction-war-system was introduced (unfortunatly at a time I was sleeping). I went 15:5 with my Def-Deck able to obtain 150 points. I assumed that most attackers did use surge (what they did!). So I was able to obtain 150 points out of 20 fights, where the 5 losses lead to at 141 (almost 30 per loss) points as well. Therefore even 10 wins more than the attacker had (on my deck) was a net win of NINE points. Even if your def-deck is working out 66% of all cases you are still shot in the foot, if you are not online. Therefore I have to agree with xRepclicax that the Bonus has to be reviewed… The suggestion to grant 10 Bonus-Points to the defender in case of a Surge-Surrender seems reasonable to me. It would have been 300:141 on def-side. That seems more likely a distribution of 66% win-ratio. It will also lead to a point that spamming Surge is not a viable option anymore if you lack a deck that works out. On the other end, I just “spammed” Surge myself on an actual war on offense and 7:3 leads to 291:30. That is a total + of 261 by offense (within 10 battles) or a total net win of 26.1 per fight – 41.6 per win. At this very point activity beats skill by far.

You could quote yourself….

Maybe extra point loss on Surge would be good if Surge actually provided more bonus points, but with the current +20, definately not.

Yes, at this point, activity would still beat skill by far. But that’s what people want. To be online once per hour or two just to win. Sadly.

I like the new system, but yes, surge should also double the penalty for losing. It is more easy than before when fight was the only option

 
Flag Post

>_>.

I’d assume people would cover their asses for Surge rather than Fight, since it gives more points.

80~90%→100% winrate for Fight doesn’t really boost point gain that much whereas 50%→70~80% winrate for Surge would significantly increase point gain.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Katerchen:

mimimi…
as stated Here

Even 20 Bonus-Points are too much. Otherwise a 15:5 win ratio on a DEFENSE DECK have to pay out with more than f***ing 9 points as net win…

You are not taking into account the lost earnings that your defence deck caused to the opponents. You prevented ~40 × 15 = 600 points. That’s a lot more than the old system.

Originally posted by Siberian_husky:


I like the new system, but yes, surge should also double the penalty for losing. It is more easy than before when fight was the only option

Then it would no longer be a justifiable option unless your win rate was sky high.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Thargoid:
Originally posted by Katerchen:

mimimi…
as stated Here

Even 20 Bonus-Points are too much. Otherwise a 15:5 win ratio on a DEFENSE DECK have to pay out with more than f***ing 9 points as net win…

You are not taking into account the lost earnings that your defence deck caused on the opponents. You prevented ~40 × 15 = 600 points. That’s a lot more than the old system.

Originally posted by Siberian_husky:

I like the new system, but yes, surge should also double the penalty for losing. It is more easy than before when fight was the only option

Then it would no longer be a justifiable option unless your win rate was sky high.

let us see… make surge a 50 pt win, surrender -20, loss 40. Hmm…. Double the pts for double the risk ?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Siberian_husky:
Originally posted by Thargoid:
Originally posted by Katerchen:

mimimi…
as stated Here

Even 20 Bonus-Points are too much. Otherwise a 15:5 win ratio on a DEFENSE DECK have to pay out with more than f***ing 9 points as net win…

You are not taking into account the lost earnings that your defence deck caused on the opponents. You prevented ~40 × 15 = 600 points. That’s a lot more than the old system.

Originally posted by Siberian_husky:

I like the new system, but yes, surge should also double the penalty for losing. It is more easy than before when fight was the only option

Then it would no longer be a justifiable option unless your win rate was sky high.


let us see… make surge a 50 pt win, surrender -20, loss 40. Hmm…. Double the pts for double the risk ?


That logic works only if surge was attacker first.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Siberian_husky:

let us see… make surge a 50 pt win, surrender -20, loss 40. Hmm…. Double the pts for double the risk ?

That would be acceptable if the difficulty level was the same for fight and for surge. As it is not, there has to be a net incentive to give the defender the first turn against you.